Posted: Feb 11, 2019 9:07 am
archibald wrote:Mike_L wrote:archibald wrote:Mike_L wrote:I have little doubt that the majority of members on this forum will be opposed to the main points. But to dismiss it as "racist", "sexist", "anti-gay" etc. without even having read the bulk of the content, is plain lazy, IMO.
True. It's hogwash in other ways too.
Mike, I get that you have an issue with certain forms of radical Feminism. Actually, I do too. But I'm not about to applaud bilge propaganda in the opposite direction that is just as bad, just because it's the 'enemy of my enemy' so to speak. Two wrongs don't make a right. That article is appalling. Please stop applauding it just because you have a valid problem with some forms of radical feminism.
I appreciate that you read it, and I respect that you don't value it the way I do. No problem.
You go ahead and value it Mike. Tell us how excellent you think it is.
Done that already. Take it or leave it, don't moan about it. I've already said that I respect your opinion.
Don't look for the flaws in it. Only do that for things that you don't like.
Never said it's flawless. But the plus-points are sufficient, IMO, to qualify it as "excellent". Note the "IMO" there. You're not compelled to agree with me. Really, you're not.
And then derail a thread about them.
It's a tangential point, not a derail. The creator of the Gillette "ad" is a feminist.
Be inconsistent why don't you?
My position has been consistent for the entirety of the thread.
archibald wrote:purplerat wrote:Well golly-gee-willikers, color me surprised that Mike would think anti-gay sources are excellent.
Or maybe this is just another red herring
Mile is not endorsing that. He's just willing to overlook it and applaud anyway, because the article takes aim at something he dislikes. My enemy's enemy is my friend, etc.
I could make the counter-claim that you're placing inordinate emphasis on something not even contained in the main article itself (it's on a page in a linked website... just one of many linked websites).
Not that separately, the analysis of feminism in the article is balanced anyway, but hey. We don't mind a bit of skew when it's leaning in our preferred direction.
We all have our biases / leanings.
archibald wrote:Conservatives have taken strategic and focused aim at colleges because colleges are not Conservative. Conservatives have a well-funded campaign which is McCarthyist in essence. They exaggerate and misrepresent. That's the underlying theme here. But Mike has no interest in deconstructing that. No, he's happy to applaud. Let's only look for underlying messages when it suits us. Let's be biased in our analysis. After all, we're only trying to be rational skeptics.
Conservatives are entitled to express their opinions on campuses and elsewhere, provided that they don't engage in hate speech.
Edit:
article website